I once had a philosophy professor who casually mentioned to the class that
when we listen to a recorded piece of music, we don't hear the entire
spectrum of the music, but only the outer shell. He explained that when,
for example, a classical symphony is recorded, only the extreme peaks and
valleys of the signal are picked up and when the recording is played back,
because the speakers can only move in one direction at any given moment, you
will only hear these peaks and valleys, and none of the filler in-between.
I know that I'm not explaining this using proper audio terminology, but his
explanation seems logical to me. If, for example, a clarinet and a flute
are playing at the same time, all we will ever hear from the recording is
the "combined" signal.

The result of this is that, no matter how good the recording is, we can
never truly hear the individual instruments which, of course, negates things
like "air" around the instruments (unless, of course, there is a space
between the actual notes). In fact, we can never hear the entire orchestra,
nor differentiate between the instruments playing. All we hear is the
shadow of the music.

If this idea is way off, please correct me. I have very little technical
knowledge, but I do love music. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Roland Goetz.

Spiderant wrote:
I once had a philosophy professor who casually mentioned to the class that
when we listen to a recorded piece of music, we don't hear the entire
spectrum of the music, but only the outer shell. He explained that when,
for example, a classical symphony is recorded, only the extreme peaks and
valleys of the signal are picked up and when the recording is played back,
because the speakers can only move in one direction at any given moment, you
will only hear these peaks and valleys, and none of the filler in-between.
I know that I'm not explaining this using proper audio terminology, but his
explanation seems logical to me. If, for example, a clarinet and a flute
are playing at the same time, all we will ever hear from the recording is
the "combined" signal.

What did your professors of biology and physics think of your
philosophy professor?

Eiron wrote:
Spiderant wrote:

I once had a philosophy professor who casually mentioned to the class
that when we listen to a recorded piece of music, we don't hear the
entire spectrum of the music, but only the outer shell. He explained
that when, for example, a classical symphony is recorded, only the
extreme peaks and valleys of the signal are picked up and when the
recording is played back, because the speakers can only move in one
direction at any given moment, you will only hear these peaks and
valleys, and none of the filler in-between. I know that I'm not
explaining this using proper audio terminology, but his explanation
seems logical to me. If, for example, a clarinet and a flute are
playing at the same time, all we will ever hear from the recording is
the "combined" signal.


What did your professors of biology and physics think of your
philosophy professor?

Saves me the trouble of saying something similar.

When the pressure waves from the two instruments get to your ears, they
have combined in just they same way, so to use your prof's description,
we can never heard the two instruments at that point. Its the processing
the brain does that allows us to decide the combined sound is actually
the product off two sources, and its just the same whenhearing the
recording.

--
Nick

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:03:56 GMT, "Spiderant"
wrote:

I once had a philosophy professor who casually mentioned to the class that
when we listen to a recorded piece of music, we don't hear the entire
spectrum of the music, but only the outer shell. He explained that when,
for example, a classical symphony is recorded, only the extreme peaks and
valleys of the signal are picked up and when the recording is played back,
because the speakers can only move in one direction at any given moment, you
will only hear these peaks and valleys, and none of the filler in-between.
I know that I'm not explaining this using proper audio terminology, but his
explanation seems logical to me. If, for example, a clarinet and a flute
are playing at the same time, all we will ever hear from the recording is
the "combined" signal.

Had he been a *physics* professor, he would have known better........

The result of this is that, no matter how good the recording is, we can
never truly hear the individual instruments which, of course, negates things
like "air" around the instruments (unless, of course, there is a space
between the actual notes). In fact, we can never hear the entire orchestra,
nor differentiate between the instruments playing. All we hear is the
shadow of the music.

If this idea is way off, please correct me. I have very little technical
knowledge, but I do love music. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

It's way off. All you have to do is listen to a good recording played
on a good system, and you'll realise that the guy was talking utter
********.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Spiderant" wrote in message
news:MQcpd.321783$nl.260854@pd7tw3no...
I once had a philosophy professor who casually mentioned to the class that
when we listen to a recorded piece of music, we don't hear the entire
spectrum of the music, but only the outer shell. He explained that when,
for example, a classical symphony is recorded, only the extreme peaks and
valleys of the signal are picked up and when the recording is played back,
because the speakers can only move in one direction at any given moment,
you will only hear these peaks and valleys, and none of the filler
in-between. I know that I'm not explaining this using proper audio
terminology, but his explanation seems logical to me. If, for example, a
clarinet and a flute are playing at the same time, all we will ever hear
from the recording is the "combined" signal.



If that's the case, take your audio kit to the nearest recycling centre and
swap it for a three piece suite......

In article MQcpd.321783$nl.260854@pd7tw3no, Spiderant
wrote:
I once had a philosophy professor who casually mentioned...

[snip]

If this idea is way off, please correct me. I have very little
technical knowledge, but I do love music. Any help would be greatly
appreciated.

Afraid that if you report them accurately, then his ideas tell us that his
understanding of physics, physiology, etc, was pretty limited. I'd
recommend that you regard his views on this as misleading and misguided.
Think of them as being a "philosopher's song" version of the subject. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

In message MQcpd.321783$nl.260854@pd7tw3no, Spiderant
writes
I once had a philosophy professor who casually mentioned to the class that
when we listen to a recorded piece of music, we don't hear the entire
spectrum of the music, but only the outer shell. He explained that when,
for example, a classical symphony is recorded, only the extreme peaks and
valleys of the signal are picked up and when the recording is played back,
because the speakers can only move in one direction at any given moment, you
will only hear these peaks and valleys, and none of the filler in-between.
I know that I'm not explaining this using proper audio terminology, but his
explanation seems logical to me. If, for example, a clarinet and a flute
are playing at the same time, all we will ever hear from the recording is
the "combined" signal.

The result of this is that, no matter how good the recording is, we can
never truly hear the individual instruments which, of course, negates things
like "air" around the instruments (unless, of course, there is a space
between the actual notes). In fact, we can never hear the entire orchestra,
nor differentiate between the instruments playing. All we hear is the
shadow of the music.

If this idea is way off, please correct me. I have very little technical
knowledge, but I do love music. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Roland Goetz.




What a plonker he was. And what were his views on the eardrum of the
listener, (being a diaphragm etc
--
Chris Morriss

"Chris Morriss" wrote in message
...
In message MQcpd.321783$nl.260854@pd7tw3no, Spiderant
writes
What a plonker he was. And what were his views on the eardrum of the
listener, (being a diaphragm etc
--
Chris Morriss

I actually did think about that. When listening to a live performance, all
the music is hitting my eardrums silmutaneously (well, maybe not
silmutaneously as, from what I understand, some frequencies travel faster
than others). Consequently, as per your suggestion, I would only hear the
combined instruments--but only if I held my head exactly the same way and,
perhaps, only if the musicians held perfectly still. But as soon as I would
turn my ears towards, say, the clarinets, then they would dominate over the
violins, and so on. And when the solo pianist would start to play, I would
turn my head towards him or her and the piano would dominate. As a result,
a live performance would seem much more dimensional, would it not? Since a
recording can only play the combined signal from a stationary point,
regardless of how I would turn my head when listening to my speakers, I
don't see how I could distinquish the instruments in the same way.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Roland Goetz.

In article xYwpd.329777$Pl.264539@pd7tw1no, Spiderant
wrote:

"Chris Morriss" wrote in message
...
In message MQcpd.321783$nl.260854@pd7tw3no, Spiderant
writes What a plonker he was. And what were his
views on the eardrum of the listener, (being a diaphragm etc --
Chris Morriss

I actually did think about that. When listening to a live performance,
all the music is hitting my eardrums silmutaneously (well, maybe not
silmutaneously as, from what I understand, some frequencies travel
faster than others).

No. In air, and at normal sound levels, the frequencies all travel at
essentially the same velocities.

Consequently, as per your suggestion, I would only hear the combined
instruments--but only if I held my head exactly the same way and,
perhaps, only if the musicians held perfectly still. But as soon as I
would turn my ears towards, say, the clarinets, then they would dominate
over the violins, and so on. And when the solo pianist would start to
play, I would turn my head towards him or her and the piano would
dominate. As a result, a live performance would seem much more
dimensional, would it not?

This depends upon how well a *stereo* (or 'surround') recording replicates
the original soundfield in terms of perception. Stereo is a 'trick' in the
sense that it does not set out to physically replicate the original
soundfield, but to give an effect which tricks our perception into thinking
we are hearing a convincing representation of that soundfield.


Since a recording can only play the combined signal from a stationary
point,

recordings can be made using a multiplicity of microphones, located in
various places. The replay can involve two or more speakers not located in
the same place.

regardless of how I would turn my head when listening to my
speakers, I don't see how I could distinquish the instruments in the
same way.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If you listen to good stereo recordings, played using good speakers, in a
suitable room acoustic, it is possible to get a 'stereo' effect that is a
fairly convincing impression of having the instruments laid out in front of
you as they would be at, say, an orchestral concert. Once you hear this,
you can decide for yourself that assuming it is not possible must be
incorrect. :-)

FWIW during the last week or so I did some minor fiddling about with the
audio system in the living room. This produced some apparent changes which
I think have improved the results. A consequence is that I enjoyed spending
time yesterday listening to;

1) CD-A of the Bartok Concerto for Orchestra performance (Mercury Living
Presence on Mercury 432 017-2)

2) CD-A of "English String Music" Barbirolli and the Sinfonia of London
(EMI CDC 7 47537 2) [I also have the later 'ART' re-issue, but tried the
earlier version on this occasion.]

Chose these simply as they are performances/recordings I have enjoyed in
the past, and fancied re-listening to them.

In both cases I had the distinct impression of quite a convincingly
realistic sound of instruments laid out in an acoustic space. No idea if
this is exactly what it sounded like at the time, but the results sounded
like a good directional image to me.

That said, I had to ensure the speakers and my head were in the 'right
places' to get the best effect. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Spiderant wrote:

I once had a philosophy professor who casually mentioned to the class that
when we listen to a recorded piece of music, we don't hear the entire
spectrum of the music, but only the outer shell. He explained that when,
for example, a classical symphony is recorded, only the extreme peaks and
valleys of the signal are picked up and when the recording is played back,
because the speakers can only move in one direction at any given moment,
you will only hear these peaks and valleys, and none of the filler
in-between. I know that I'm not explaining this using proper audio
terminology, but his
explanation seems logical to me. If, for example, a clarinet and a flute
are playing at the same time, all we will ever hear from the recording is
the "combined" signal.

The result of this is that, no matter how good the recording is, we can
never truly hear the individual instruments which, of course, negates
things like "air" around the instruments (unless, of course, there is a
space
between the actual notes). In fact, we can never hear the entire
orchestra,
nor differentiate between the instruments playing. All we hear is the
shadow of the music.

If this idea is way off, please correct me. I have very little technical
knowledge, but I do love music. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Roland Goetz.

I think you will find most of this group will tell you that your philosophy
professor is completely wrong.

Ian
--
Ian Bell